Clause 1 - Civil partnership

Part of Civil Partnership Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 9:45 am on 21 October 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Jacqui Smith Jacqui Smith Minister of State (Industry and the Regions and Deputy Minister for Women), Department of Trade and Industry 9:45, 21 October 2004

Yes, it is bizarre. I have nothing to add; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

I move on to some of the legal arguments that the hon. Member for Christchurch made. On Second Reading and again today, he suggested that it was discriminatory for legislation to favour married couples or those in a legally recognised relationship. He quoted from the interim report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and he referred in particular—as he has today—to the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court in the case of Miron v. Trudel.

However, the hon. Gentleman did not outline the context and content of that case, and we should be clear about that. It was about financial support under an insurance policy where a spouse was injured in a motor accident. The court found, by a majority of five to four, that there was no justification for the legislature to have restricted the benefits of the legislation in question to married couples to the exclusion of unmarried opposite-sex couples.

That case was not about eligibility to form a particular kind of legal relationship; it was about the appropriate allocation of a particular benefit as between couples in a formal relationship and those who were not in such a relationship. Therefore, it is not clear that even that case supports the hon. Gentleman's contention. Furthermore, he did not go on to add that, in any event, in a more recent decision in the case of Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh—which I put in my letter—the same court reached a different conclusion, and with only one dissenting judgment, so that was a very clear majority. This time, considering legislation on the division of matrimonial property, the court emphasised that a distinction may very properly be made between those who decide to marry and those who do not.

It is likely that the European Court of Human Rights would follow the latter approach. As the Joint Committee's interim report recognised, the Court has confirmed that it is compatible with convention rights to treat married couples differently from couples that do not marry.